Nick Baty wrote:Of course in those days ICEL will have been a new body working with a new concept and was, doubtless, suspicious of everything and everybody.

No they weren't, they were just thugs, stealing other people's texts left, right and centre and pretending that they were their own. This was in part because they didn't have the same access to the Roman dicasteries as others did, and in part because they didn't always have the competence or (more often) the time to do their own work. There's a whole history waiting to be written about this some day. While they haven't been nearly as bad as that in recent times, occasionally the old habits seem to rear their ugly heads.

Nick Baty wrote:(By the way, who did the first translation into English (65/67?) – am I right in thinking ICEL's first attempt was the 1973 Missal? Or did they do the first one and then revise it?)

ICEL's first draft effort was the Roman Canon in 1965. Their first published effort was the 1969/70 Order of Mass, followed by the 1970 Holy Week rites, both incorporated into the 1973 Missal. The 1966 text for the Order of Mass that we used was produced by the National Liturgical Commission of England & Wales. The original prayers and antiphons of the Missal that we used were also done by the NLC, which is why Goodliffe Neale missalettes for years carried both NLC and ICEL translations of them.

The American publisher is indeed publishing "suites" (as they call them) of eucharistic acclamations. The copyright acknowledgement dispute was in relation to the ICET Sanctus in those suites.

Nick Baty wrote:And isn't there a case for claiming copyright on a collection? Otherwise, how does the Holy See manage to claim copyright over the whole Missale Romanum when so much of it has been in the public domain for so long?

You're confusing compilation copyright with copyright over texts. The Holy See is just as interested in money as anyone else. They receive a royalty on all official liturgical books. When it comes to Latin originals from which translations are made, no one else gets a look-in! However, they're not doing this under a compilation copyright but a textual one. They say they "own" the Latin, even if it has been around for centuries.

Southern Comfort wrote:When it comes to Latin originals from which translations are made, no one else gets a look-in! However, they're not doing this under a compilation copyright but a textual one. They say they "own" the Latin, even if it has been around for centuries.

Whatever rights the Vatican may have within its own limited boundaries, it would be laughed out of anyone else's courts if it tried to assert copyright over the older Latin and Greek texts, which have been around since long before the development of copyright law.

Yes, it's the second line in particular – and several composers kept this arrangement of words in more recent settings. Childhood memories are of stiff cards in the pews and Mum pointing out the words to me. And wasn't there a time when we were allowed to say the words but not sing them?

I'm away on holiday at the moment (is there a smiley for "smug"?) so I can't rush to my ancient missal, which was a long-established version by the time I was given it in the early fifties, but it certainly had English down one half of the page - and presumably in those days an Imprimatur as well (all subject to checking when I get home) - so whose translation was that? - I can't wait to check the wording of the Sanctus!

In the 1958 edition of the Missal in front of me it's:Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Hosts.Heaven and earth are full of Thy glory.Hosanna in the highest.Blessed is he who cometh in the name of the Lord.Hosanna in the highest.

I've 'bumped' this discussion in view of recent references to Copyright on another topic. It seems to me to be a useful guide to ICEL and Copyright for Mass settings.

Is there anything we can do about ICEL? It doesn't look as if they've consulted properly over their copyright entitlement. To claim copyright over the current translations for 'Lord Have Mercy', 'Holy Holy' and Lamb of God' is, IMO, illegal, even if they don't charge for the use of those translations. Sadly, English-speaking Bishops Conferences seem content to go along with ICEL.

JW wrote:I've 'bumped' this discussion in view of recent references to Copyright on another topic. It seems to me to be a useful guide to ICEL and Copyright for Mass settings.

Is there anything we can do about ICEL? It doesn't look as if they've consulted properly over their copyright entitlement. To claim copyright over the current translations for 'Lord Have Mercy', 'Holy Holy' and Lamb of God' is, IMO, illegal, even if they don't charge for the use of those translations. Sadly, English-speaking Bishops Conferences seem content to go along with ICEL.

I don't think too many people really care very much about ICEL, JW, so probably your concwrn will not attract much ttraction.

One reason why the English-speaking Bishops' Conferences go along with all this is because they themselves get a financial return from ICEL.